Education Minister Peter Fassbender refuses to embrace BCTF proposal for binding arbitration
The B.C. government has not accepted an olive branch from the B.C. Teachers' Federation to try to resolve the teachers strike.
At a news conference today, Education Minister Peter Fassbender said that the government doesn't know enough about the union's proposal for binding arbitration to make any commitment.
"I have not seen any of the detail or the preconditions that are attached to that proposal to go into binding arbitration," Fassbender said. "That said, I've clearly said on behalf of, I believe, the people of British Columbia, the government, [and] the employers throughout the province that we want a negotiated settlement. And that has to be done in a way that respects all of the parties."
Earlier today, BCTF president Jim Iker said that teachers would vote on whether to end their strike if the province and the B.C. Public Schools Employers' Association were to agree to binding arbitration.
"For this option to work, the BCTF is proposing to send matters of compensation, benefits, and preparation time to binding arbitration," Iker said. "We will also ask government to leave the matters currently before the court, and related to the court ruling, to the courts."
Fassbender repeated his desire to see a negotiated end to the strike.
"That's why we have clearly said that we are not legislating because we believe it is incumbent on the B.C. Teachers' Federation on behalf of their members to come to a place where they can put a realistic, affordable proposal in front of their members. And that they make the decision."
He noted during the news conference that Iker informed employers' negotiator Peter Cameron five minutes ahead of time that the BCTF would go public with its call for binding arbitration.
Fassbender also stated that the government and BCPSEA must be able to justify what they're doing in light of past and future agreements with other public-sector unions.
"I've been clear that I do not relish giving over our responsibility to a third party to make the decision," Fassbender said. "We've seen the history of that in this province where it has significantly impacted taxpayers in a negative way."
The education minister also declared that the government will not raise taxes to achieve a settlement that would return more than 550,000 students to public schools.
"Our balanced budget is critical to the future," Fassbender said. "Our ability to manage our fiscal environment as government—that's what we're elected to do. Not to give that to someone else and say, 'Here, you make the decision for us.' And by the way, if the decision is that we should raise taxes, that's not acceptable."
Comments
23 Comments
Raspberry Wind
Sep 5, 2014 at 4:00pm
Happy now, Liberal voters and non-voters? You helped this happen.
Voter
Sep 5, 2014 at 5:54pm
I'm very happy with how the government is dealing with the teacher's union.
parent
Sep 5, 2014 at 7:12pm
Iker's offer is conditional on the government dropping one of the biggest issues, so I'd be surprised if Fassbender agreed to it. As long as the BCTF refuses to allow performance appraisals, and demands increases to an already bloated benefits package, there will be no settlement that is fair to taxpayers.
BCParent
Sep 5, 2014 at 7:33pm
Glad the BC government wont be bullied by teachers. I have 6 kids, four in public school and two in an adaptive school for children with Autism. Funding withdrawn from my school district.
In my opinion
Quix
Sep 5, 2014 at 7:52pm
Oh man, there are performance appraisals. You know what they're called... "performance appraisals". Also, the benefits package as presented by the government is a big fat lie (which you've clearly devoured). The Liberals have included the salaries and benefits of CEA's, office staff, various school specialists, and a myriad of other things as "benefits" in the total they've presented to the media. This is like saying that nurses are simply "benefits" in the doctors contract. Perhaps teachers should be considered "benefits" in the principals contract. In reality, the numbers are very, very close. The government is lying to you or you're lying to yourself. Either way, it's alarming.
SupportTeachers
Sep 5, 2014 at 8:13pm
Why do we even need the justice system if we don't need to adhere to court rulings? Why is it that Liberal supporters are okay with the government spending taxpayer dollars on their court appeals and social media propaganda but not okay with spending some of that money on education? BCTF is taking the higher (and fair) road in this labour dispute by asking for binding arbitration.
Brandon Volk, cause I'm not ashamed of my opinions
Sep 5, 2014 at 8:31pm
The facts are this, plain and simple, nobody in gov't argues that teachers don't deserve a raise. The teachers are striking because the gov't is acting like a facist regime. It's twice ignored BC Supreme Court rulings to deal with class composition, it's wasted 100 of millions of tax payer dollars on failed projects to increase revenues like the Olympics, convention centres that don't meet expectation etc, that it's resorting to trying to take pennies on the dollar for oil lines that sooner or later will destroy the only resources we have. No they want teachers to help foot the bill. Not fair if you ask me.
John
Sep 5, 2014 at 9:02pm
Binding arbitration involves an impartial 3rd party that will find a middle ground. It's unfortunate that this government does not want to go to binding arbitration because that would involve some sort of movement on their part and "good faith" bargaining, which they have done neither of in the last 19 months. The government would rather students stay out indefinately than they change their mandate.
Fat Daddio
Sep 5, 2014 at 9:42pm
Have any of you wondered why the teachers are not including class size and composition in the arbitration? By only including wages and benefits, they have absolutely no risk in arbitration, as the worst the arbitrator could do is rule that they get what the other public sector unions got, which is what they are going to get in any case. No risk at all.
But, if they include class size and composition, then they have to put some risk on the table. Only then would binding arbitration be worthy of consideration. Otherwise, see you in October there teachers.
Astro
Sep 5, 2014 at 10:05pm
The article says, "At a news conference today, Education Minister Peter Fassbender said that the government doesn't know enough about the union's proposal for binding arbitration to make any commitment."
And that in a nutshell tells us the problem with this lack of arbitration. The government does not know what is going, but what else is new. IT is way past time for the government to do their homework, they should have done it before summer vacation!